Comparative Study of the Information about the COVID-19 Pandemic and COVID-19 Vaccines on the Covers of United Kingdom, France, Spain and United States’ Main Newspapers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigates the information coverage of the vaccine against the information of the COVID-19 pandemic in 8 major newspapers from various western countries. The study employs a descriptive approach of heterographic analysis. The study’s theme seems appropriate for publication in the Social Science journal.
The structure of the paper is logical. Section 1 gradually introduces the problem addressed by the study and presents the research questions. The second section includes the literature review. It strikes me a bit strange that it is designated as a subsection of the introduction section. I would prefer subsection 1.1 to become section 2. The next section Materials and Methods presents the methods and the tools employed in the study. The results section is quite extensive and includes the results of the study. The last section is the discussion of the results. The manuscript includes no conclusion and future work section which are included in the discussion section. Except for the specific comments that I have mentioned above the organization of the manuscript is found to be reasonable something that contributes to the readability of the study.
Nevertheless, some issues need to be addressed.
The sentence (lines 31-33) needs to be supported by reference(s).
The sentence (lines 39-41) has a contradictive meaning. The newspapers are mentioned in both cases.
In the case of the sample of newspapers, the author(s) need to provide justification for selecting the specific newspapers. Also, no information is provided concerning when the survey was conducted. Also, the author(s) should elaborate on why the specific period was selected.
The results section includes a significant number of graphs. The problem is that the graphs do not display all the necessary information in order to be understandable to the reader. Specifically, the values displayed in figure 2 as far as I can understand are percentages. Nevertheless, this is not visible in the graph. Inf figure 3 there is no legend explaining what the two colors represent in the bars. Figure 4 is quite confusing since the Y axe is in % and the sum of values that appear in the bar is beyond 100%. In Figure 7 the sum of all percentages that appear in the pie chart is 101. Figure 10 includes a line graph. I do not believe that this type of graph is suitable for our case since we have the values of four countries and the line style depends on the order in which the countries are displayed on the graph. The authors should use another type of graph (for example bar chart). Overall, all graphs should be checked to make sure that they include all the necessary information
The author(s) does(do) not mention any limitations of the study. I would like to see some elaboration on possible limitations that may have affected the results of the study.
Overall, I believe that the study has a strong research basis. Thus, if the authors address the above points that I have raised, I believe it will be a valuable contribution to the Social Science journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review. We attached you the new version of our manuscript attending your observations such as: include the literature review subsection, a new conclusion section. Also, is provided the specific period selected at the methodology. Besides, the authors mention limitations that may have affected the results of the study. Finally, the authors consider as a best option remove all figures to avoid duplication of information.
Best regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As a scholar and journalist, I would like to give the author a chance to resubmit this article. The paper's idea is appropriate for current times.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review. We attached you the new version of our manuscript attending your observations such as: include the literature review subsection, a new conclusion section. Also, is provided the specific period selected at the methodology. Besides, the authors mention limitations that may have affected the results of the study. Finally, the authors consider as a best option remove all figures to avoid duplication of information.
Best regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My first comment has not been addressed:
The sentence (lines 31-33) needs to be supported by reference(s).
Also, I do not understand why the result of my comment about improving the information in the figures has resulted in the deletion of all figures! It is worth noting that the format of the results section (bullet points) is quite strange. I would prefer the format of the original submission and the incorporation of the figures with all the necessary information.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We attached you our final paper research after your observations.
Greetings,
The autors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is necessary to give brief information about the chosen newspapers. Otherwise, the paper loses its credibility, which affects the author. Although the topic is a global issue, we cannot expect all readers to be aware of these newspapers. Moreover, the paper becomes more professional by adding some figures which were deleted from the original one. It also appeals to the reader's senses. The question is how to control texts and images logically and aesthetically. Please follow the peer-review comment (the pdf as well).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We attached you our final paper research after your observations.
Greetings,
The autors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
